Yesterdaythe telegraph brought the news that Nicholas II had received a Zemstvo
deputation last Monday. Responding to speeches by Prince Sergei Trubetskoi and
Mr. Fyodrov, the tsar emphatically confirmed his promise to convene an
assembly of people’s representatives.

Toappreciate fully the significance of this “event” we
must first of all reconstruct certain facts that were reported
in the foreign press.

OnMay 24 and 25, old style, about 300 Zemstvo and municipal representatives
held three meetings in Moscow. In the lithographed copies we have received from
Russia of their petition to the tsar and of a resolution adopted by them the
number of attending delegates is not indicated; mention is made only of City
Mayors and Marshals of the Nobility, as well as Zemstvo and municipal
councillors, having attended the Conference. The representatives of landlordism
and urban capital discussed the political fortunes of Russia. According to the
foreign correspondents, the debate was very heated. The Shipov party, with its
moderate policy and its extensive Court connections, enjoyed great
influence. The most radical were the provincial delegates, the most moderate
those from St. Petersburg, while the “Centre” was formed by the
Moscow delegates. Every word of the petition was debated, St. Petersburg finally
joining in the vote for it. The resulting document was a patriotic and loyal
petition. “Actuated solely by ardent love of country”, the
respectable bourgeois gentlemen sink “all discord
and all differences that divide them” and appeal to the tsar. They point
to “the grave danger to Russia and to the Throne itself”,
which emanates not so much from abroad as from “internal
strife”. (True, “Russia” comes before the
“Throne”, but our patriots appealed to the Throne first and
only threatened—privately and à la
sourdine—to appeal
to the people.) As usual, the petition is full of official eyewash:
everything is blamed on the tsar’s councillors, on the distortion of his
designs and prescriptions which has led to a tightening of the· police
regime and prevented the “voice of truth” from ascending to the
Throne, etc. They conclude with the request, “before it is too
late”, that “representatives of the people elected for this purpose
by all subjects on an equal basis, without any distinction, be convoked without
delay”. The representatives of the people are to decide the question of
war or peace “in concert” with the tsar and to establish [also
in concert with the tsar] an improved system of
government”. Thus, the petition contains no explicit demand for
universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot, which was alleged to
have been adopted by the “Constitutional-Democratic” Party (all
reference to direct suffrage and secret ballot is omitted and, of course, not by
accident); and no guarantees whatever are demanded to ensure that the elections
will be free. The authors of the petition state pathetically: “Oppression
of the individual and of society, denial of free speech, and all manner of
tyranny are multiplying and growing”; but no measures against them are
suggested. Tyranny is growing “in concert” with the tsar; so let the
political system be “improved” in concert with the tsar.... The
representatives of the bourgeoisie are holding fast to the theory of an
“agreement”, not, of course, on the part of the people, but on the
part of the bourgeoisie, and the people’s oppressors.

TheConference elected a delegation to present the petition to the tsar. It
consisted of Messrs. Heyden, Golovin, Petrunkevich, G. and N. Lvov, Pyotr and
Pavel Dolgorukov, Kovalevsky, Novosiltsev, Rodichev, Shakhovskoi, and Sergei
Trubetskoi. Later, at the audience given by Nicholas II, they were joined by
Messrs. Korf, Nikitin, and Fyodorov, from St. Petersburg.

TheConference then adopted the following resolution,
which was not reported in the foreign press but is reproduced in the Russian
leaflet:

“ThisConference of united groups of Zemstvo and municipal
representatives, imbued, notwithstanding differences of opinion on certain
political questions, with the common conviction that the root cause of the
present difficult position of Russia, domestic and foreign, is the still
existing system of government by decree, which denies individual and public
freedom,represses the self-realisation and independent activity of the people,
debars the population from participation in the life of the state, and breeds
unrestrained and constantly increasing lawlessness on the part of an
irresponsible administration; that this system of government, which for many
years has been a source of violence, falsehood, and corruption in our internal
life, has now led to the dire threat of grave external danger, by having
involved the nation in a disastrous war, in the course of which it has
engendered and sustained internecine strife, and brought the country to a series
of defeats culminating in a disaster to its naval forces unprecedented in
Russian history;—and, firm in the conviction that the further existence
of this regime menaces, not only the internal peace, the order, and the welfare
of the people, but also the stability of the Throne and the territorial
integrity and external security of Russia, this Conference declares that the
salvation of the country makes it imperatively necessary:

“1.That freely elected popular representatives be immediately convoked to
decide, jointly with the Sovereign, the question of war and peace and of
establishing a constitutional state system;

“2.That all laws, institutions, decisions, and orders which contravene
the principles of personal liberty, freedom of speech, of the press, and of
association and assembly, be immediately nullified, and that a political amnesty
be proclaimed;

“3.That the administrative personnel be immediately renewed through the
placement of the central administration in the charge of persons who are
sincerely devoted to the cause of reforming the state and who enjoy the
confidence of the community.”

Wedo not know in what relation this resolution stands to the petition and to
the mandates of the delegation, whether the delegation undertook to set forth
the substance of the resolution or to present it together with the
petition. Perhaps the petition is the official document for the
“Throne”, and the resolution the unofficial document for the
“people”?

Asregards the character of the debates at the Conference, the correspondent of
the French paper Le Matin,[1]
M. Gaston Leroux, reports that the most
“progressive-minded” of the delegates, those from the provincial
Zemstvos, stood for a two-stage electoral system, fearing that under
direct elections they would be overwhelmed by the “towns” (evidently
they feared that under direct elections the privileges of the landlords
over the peasants would not be fully guaranteed). The correspondent of
the Frankfurter Zeitung wrote:

“TheRussian Zemstvo as a political party consists of three groupings: the
liberal Zemstvo majority (with Count Heyden as its leader), the
moderately liberal nationalist Slavophil Zemstvo minority headed by
Mr. Shipov, and the group of radical Zemstvo constitutionalists. It is
characteristic that at the election of delegates ... it was the
’feudal’ candidates
that got through. The moderates wanted to be worthily represented before the
tsar by members of respected old families. And the radicals, who entertained no
illusions as to the outcome of the petition, wanted the representatives of the
old families to see with their own eyes that the government would not yield an
inch voluntarily.”

Theconveniences of that nebulous organisation of the
“Constitutional-Democratic” (read: monarchist) party eulogised by
Mr. Struve were not long in revealing themselves in practice. A strong, firmly
knit party organisation will not lend itself to dickering and bargaining, to
dodges and subterfuges. Let the “party” include both the
Osvobozhdeniye League (perhaps this is the “group of
radicals” mentioned by the correspondent of the Frankfurter
Zeitung) and the “Zemstvo group” (i.e., the followers of Heyden
and of Shipov, from whom Mr. Struve is now officially seeking to dissociate himself). But the Zemstvo group includes the Heydenists, the
Shipovists, and ... the “radicals”. Work this out if you can! But
they are all agreed, moved as they were by ardent love for their country and for
the privileges of the bourgeois, on the theory of agreement, with which
we have often dealt in Proletary, and which is clearly in evidence both
in the “petition” and in the “resolution”.

Theresolution was probably designed to satisfy the “ideal” demands
of the radicals, while the petition, as interpreted by the
“moderate” delegates, was to serve the purpose of a material deal
with tsarism. Such things as the numerical representation of the groupings at
the Conference, the powers of the delegates, the terms of the deal,
and the further intentions of the Zemstvo men were very
care fully
concealed
from the uninitiated plebs. The “people”, in whose name the
bourgeois gentlemen are bargaining with tsarism, have no need to know the high
politics of the “Constitutional-Democratic Party”! The
bourgeois gentlemen will converse with the tsar about the suppression of free
speech and the voice of truth, about people’s representatives, about a
Russia that has “rallied round the one standard of the
people”, etc.; but for this people to know the whole truth about
the policy pursued by the liberal and Osvobozhdeniye hagglers is quite
superfluous.... Indeed,not without reason did Mr. Struve, in 0svobozhdeniye , recently reproach the “extreme parties” (the
Social-Democrats in particular) for their immoderate leaning to narrow,
conspiratorial, Jacobin “secrecy”. We Social-Democrats resort to
secrecy from the tsar and his blood hounds, while taking pains that the people
should know every thing about our Party, about the shades of opinion within it,
about the development of its programme and policy, that they should even know
what this or that Party congress delegate said at the congress in question. The
enlightened bourgeois of the Osvobozhdeniye fraternity
surround themselves with secrecy... from the people, who know nothing
definite about the
much-talked-of “Constitutional-Democratic” Party; but they make up
for this by taking the tsar and his sleuths into their confidence. Who can say
they are not democrats?

Whatsecrets the Zemstvo delegates unbosomed to the Court cabal, who refused to
admit them to the tsar, we do not know. But the confidences and talks continued
for quite a while. The foreign press was agog for news about the delegates’
every step in the game of “high politics”. St. Petersburg, June 9
(May 27): The Zemstvo deputation will in the first place see Mr. Bulygin,
Minister of the Interior, in order to lodge a complaint against Trepov. June 10
(May 28):
Bulygin told the deputation that it would not be received by the tsar and
advised it to leave St. Petersburg. June 12 (May 30): It is thought probable
that the tsar will receive the deputation. June 15 (2): A special telegram from
M. Gaston Leroux to Le Matin: “The Zemstvo delegates have accepted
the conditions set by the Minister of the Court for an audience with the
Emperor. Thereupon Baron Fredericks
went this evening to Tsarskoye Selo to inquire of the tsar whether he had
decided to receive the deputation.”

Doyou hear this, Russian workers and peasants? This is how they behave, these
“liberationists” and “democrats”, these foes of
conspiracy, these abhorrers of secrecy! They
con spire
with the Minister of the
Court of His Policemanic Majesty, hugger-mugger with the spies against the
people. They pose as the representatives of the “people”,
while accepting conditions framed by spies on how to speak
with a tsar on the
needs of the “people”!

Thisis how they act, the rich, independent, enlightened, and liberal-minded
patriots who are “actuated by ardent love of country”. How unlike
the rough unschooled working-class rabble, dependent on every clerk, which
tries to push its way straight to the tsar without any concealment, led by an
audacious priest, without having even talked with the influential spies about
the conditions of an interview with the tsar. How can one think of a republic,
or even of direct elections or of a unicameral system with such politically
uneducated masses? The politically educated know the ropes and understand that
one should first make a backstairs call on the spies—perhaps even consult
them as to the substance and style of the petition to the tsar—after
which the “voice of truth” will surely “ascend to the
Throne”.

Whatsort of bargain the “representatives [save the mark!] of the
people” struck with the tsar’s spies we do not know. We know from the
telegrams that at the reception of the delegation Prince Trubetskoi delivered
“a lengthy speech” in which, for half an hour, he described to the
tsar the plight of Russia and the conditions that had compelled the Zemstvo men
to appeal directly to the tsar (and not through his spies?). The speech made a
profound impression upon the tsar. Mr. Fyodorov spoke on behalf of the
representatives of St. Petersburg. The tsar responded with a long
speech. He
expressed regret at the enormous sacrifices caused by the war, lamented the
latest defeat at sea, and concluded with the words: “I thank you,
gentlemen, for the sentiments you have expressed [fine sentiments they
must have been, considering that the “democrat” Trubetskoi had
consulted the spies on how to express them!]. I believe in your desire to work
with me [the tsar believes
the liberal bourgeoisie; the liberal bourgeoisie believes the tsar; claw
me—claw thee] in setting up a new system of government built on new
principles. My desire to convene a popular assembly [When? Are the
representatives to be elected? If so, in what manner and by whom? This is not
known. Evidently Mr. Trubetskoi concealed from his beloved sovereign the
“resolution” of the conference; the spies must have advised him not
to broach this subject to the tsar!] is unshakable. It is daily in my
thoughts. My will shall be carried out. You may announce this to the population
of town and countryside this very day. You will help me in this new work. The
popular assembly will restore unity between Russia and its emperor [between the
Trubetskois and Fyodorovs and the emperor?]. It will lay the foundation of the
system which will repose on Russian national principles." The
delegates—says the official telegram—came away from the audience
tremendously impressed. The tsar seemed pleased, too....

Thisdoes look like the real truth! The tsar is pleased, the liberal bourgeois
are pleased. They are ready to conclude a lasting peace with one another. The
autocracy and the police (the true Russian national principles) are pleased. The
money-bags as well are pleased (from now on their advice will be sought
constantly and regularly).

Butwill the workers and peasants be pleased—they whose interests the
bourgeois traitors are bartering away?